HI Licensing coming to Washington State

[wforsyth]

Do you feel that your group is an accurate representation of the NACHI membership in Washington State? Because I know of people who were interested in getting involved but were discouraged from joining this group.

[Steven L. Smith]

Rick,

What you say ties into what I thought. I had seen an Email indicating that Senator Spanel was not planning to bring it up again based on how unpopular the reception was last time. I think she was under the impression that the industry was behind this idea, to protect against unqualified inspectors, but found out that was not how the big HI organizations felt at all.

Then, just this week, I saw an Email from Kohl-Welles office to a colleague saying it was going to be brought up again. Quote:

"It appears that the Department of Licensing has decided to not conduct
a "sunrise review" that I had requested it do last session. As a
result, Sen. Spanel and I likely will introduce the bill for the 2007
legislative session."

So I do not know for sure but, based on that Email and perhaps bolstered by the KIRO story, I would sure not count out this coming up again. I noticed in the KIRO article they indicated that ASHI supports it. Friends of mine, who are in ASHI, seemed a bit dumbfounded by that statement. They were under the impression that ASHI is not for this law. So, frankly, it all seems quite confusing right now.

I read the law, again tonight, as it was written last year and saw that they were citing the NHIE as the test to pass to qualify. I remember last year WSPCA had sent a form out asking if we thought the state should design their own exam and I heard others talk about that. But, as written, looks like anyone concerned about this potential law, should it pass, could get a leg up by studying for the NHIE. As you probably know, there is a practice test area for just that purpose here at the NACHI site.

Steve

[James H. Bushart]

Just from my own personal observation of the the cycles that evolve in the legislative proposition process, the value of the group representation is minimal.

In pushing a bill through, a legislator will want to feel (or at least reflect to their fellow legislators) that they are representing a popular cause. This is why these "coalitions" pop up all over the place...groups of inspectors pretending to represent all inspectors to create an illusion of togetherness on the items being proposed. If you want to be heard, form a separate group of inspectors who oppose the proposed bill...and let your legislator know you exist.

Make noise. Shake the confidence of the legislator who mistakenly feel they have taken on a popular cause. Let the legislators who are political enemies of your legislator know of your concerns and opposition and let them assist you in your fight against the bill, as proposed.

Then, in committee and sidebar, the bill is compromised to include your proposed wording or exclude the objectionable wording.

This will usually create chaos in the other camp and, as is often the case, the bill is tabled for lack of grass root support.

The bottom line is...as it should be...any and all inspectors can take an individual role in furthering or destroying any legislative efforts that affect their livelihood. As it should be, it is easier to kill a bill than to pass it...if you know how to do it.

Don't sleep. Be vigilant. Accept only the law that you can live with...or accept no law at all.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

The Committee is not balanced at all. The breakdown follows.

Organization ---------State Membership ------------Committee Members

ASHI----------------------- 198 --------------------------- 6

NAHI ------------------------57 --------------------------- 5

NACHI ----------------------291 --------------------------- 3*

AII --------------------------60 ** ------------------------ 2

Independant -----------------unk. --------------------------2

* Art Sodano no longer shows up on Find an Inspector an may not be a member any longer. Nick should check this out. If he is no longer a NACHI member, that brings our number to 2.

** estimate only based on major city search.

[rbunzel]

Stephen,

I am not sure where your drawing your numbers from but we have never had that many people attend our meetings. What I can say is that I find the meetings very non-partisan and the attendees are very much looking out for the well being of our industry.

It is in our industries interest to show solidarity as we move forward with our draft of the legislation. If we appear as a fractured gaggle of inspectors, there is the likelyhood that another group such as the technical schools or realtors will submit legislation that will impose hardships on us. I don't think anyone wants that. Each group has representitives that represent the interests of that group. This is a time to let the system work and have faith that the advisory group is looking out for the best interests of Washington Home Inspectors.

//Rick

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rbunzel

This is a time to let the system work and have faith that the advisory group is looking out for the best interests of Washington Home Inspectors.

Wow.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by rbunzel

Stephen,

I am not sure where your drawing your numbers from but we have never had that many people attend our meetings. What I can say is that I find the meetings very non-partisan and the attendees are very much looking out for the well being of our industry.


//Rick

Those are numbers. There is a letter dated November 23, 2006 from "The Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group" that was online. It had a list of people involved along with their affiliation. Attached is a copy of the letter. You would need to contact Sandy Hartman, the Advisory Group Secretary for any corrections.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Wow.

Yes, and they don't want anyone in their group that may differ with their beliefs. They are very exclusive.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Those are numbers. There is a letter dated November 23, 2006 from "The Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group" that was online. It had a list of people involved along with their affiliation. Attached is a copy of the letter. You would need to contact Sandy Hartman, the Advisory Group Secretary for any corrections.

From my understanding, there used to be several more NACHI Members in the Advisory Group, until One of Them Declared that He WAS THE NACHI REP FOR WAHINGTON STATE, I asked months ago who Appointed him as MY REP, without my input, no one answered including Nick. I'd been invited to attend the meetings in Shoreline, but its a long drive across the State, the one time I was over there when a meeting was being held, the wind was blowing and the sun was shining, so I went Sailing instead.

Asking us to have "Faith" in the advisory board is ridiculous, if they wanted our support the the NACHI Members of the Board could keep us advised of what is going on instead of keeping the negotiations secret. From what I hear members of the Group were attempting to contact Spanel and Kohl-Welles after that Kiro7 report, because they anticipated that it would stir stuff up. If this Advisory Group represents us, then why all the secrecy?

[jclark1]

BTW, Bruce Macintosh (Centennial Home Inspections) is not an independent, as he is listed on the attachment (above) from Steve. His wife, and partner in the business, is the ASHI Western Washington Chapter Director. I think it's pretty dishonest to list him as an independent. Anyone that thinks he doesn't represent ASHI is deluded. The makeup of that panel is not balanced. Does that matter? I don't know, just pointing out the panel is heavily weighted towards ASHI. I'm not sure what effect that would have on the final legislation.
Yes, I'm still a NACHI member, even though the message board says I'm not.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Yes, and they don't want anyone in their group that may differ with their beliefs. They are very exclusive.

Well, then, why aren't we working to take them down? Fictitious "coalitions" are easy to identify and discredit.

[wforsyth]

Because James, it would end up like anything I try to do in this business. A waste of time.

[dthomas2]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

From my understanding, there used to be several more NACHI Members in the Advisory Group, until One of Them Declared that He WAS THE NACHI REP FOR WAHINGTON STATE, I asked months ago who Appointed him as MY REP, without my input, no one answered including Nick. I'd been invited to attend the meetings in Shoreline, but its a long drive across the State, the one time I was over there when a meeting was being held, the wind was blowing and the sun was shining, so I went Sailing instead.

Asking us to have "Faith" in the advisory board is ridiculous, if they wanted our support the the NACHI Members of the Board could keep us advised of what is going on instead of keeping the negotiations secret. From what I hear members of the Group were attempting to contact Spanel and Kohl-Welles after that Kiro7 report, because they anticipated that it would stir stuff up. If this Advisory Group represents us, then why all the secrecy?

Lewis,
I have to agree with you. If we have a NACHI representative I would like that representative to post to this board the committee activities and summary of their position or statements - at a minimum one post each quarter.

To all,
Is this a fair request?

[dthomas2]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Because James, it would end up like anything I try to do in this business. A waste of time.

Rest assured Windy that if and when we find out what these rep's are doing we will let you know. I for one will do that through private e-mails.